Achtung: hohPublica wurde am 18.11.2024 aktualisiert. Falls Sie auf Darstellungsfehler stoßen, löschen Sie bitte Ihren Browser-Cache (Strg + Umschalt + Entf). *** Attention: hohPublica was last updated on November 18, 2024. If you encounter display errors, please delete your browser cache (Ctrl + Shift + Del).
 

A REML method for the evidence‐splitting model in network meta‐analysis

dc.contributor.authorPiepho, Hans‐Peter
dc.contributor.authorForkman, Johannes
dc.contributor.authorMalik, Waqas Ahmed
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-19T12:58:27Z
dc.date.available2024-08-19T12:58:27Z
dc.date.issued2023de
dc.description.abstractChecking for possible inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence is an important task in network meta‐analysis. Recently, an evidence‐splitting (ES) model has been proposed, that allows separating direct and indirect evidence in a network and hence assessing inconsistency. A salient feature of this model is that the variance for heterogeneity appears in both the mean and the variance structure. Thus, full maximum likelihood (ML) has been proposed for estimating the parameters of this model. Maximum likelihood is known to yield biased variance component estimates in linear mixed models, and this problem is expected to also affect the ES model. The purpose of the present paper, therefore, is to propose a method based on residual (or restricted) maximum likelihood (REML). Our simulation shows that this new method is quite competitive to methods based on full ML in terms of bias and mean squared error. In addition, some limitations of the ES model are discussed. While this model splits direct and indirect evidence, it is not a plausible model for the cause of inconsistency.en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hohpublica.uni-hohenheim.de/handle/123456789/16084
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1679
dc.language.isoengde
dc.rights.licensecc_byde
dc.source1759-2887de
dc.sourceResearch Synthesis Methods; Vol. 15, No. 2 (2023), 198-212de
dc.subjectInconsistencyen
dc.subjectMaximum likelihooden
dc.subjectMixed treatment comparisonsen
dc.subjectResidual maximum likelihooden
dc.subject.ddc610
dc.titleA REML method for the evidence‐splitting model in network meta‐analysisen
dc.type.diniArticle
dcterms.bibliographicCitationResearch synthesis methods, 15 (2023), 2, 198-212. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1679. ISSN: 1759-2887
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.issn1759-2887
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.issue2
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitleResearch synthesis methods
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume15
local.export.bibtex@article{Piepho2023, url = {https://hohpublica.uni-hohenheim.de/handle/123456789/16084}, doi = {10.1002/jrsm.1679}, author = {Piepho, Hans‐Peter and Forkman, Johannes and Malik, Waqas Ahmed et al.}, title = {A REML method for the evidence‐splitting model in network meta‐analysis}, journal = {Research synthesis methods}, year = {2023}, volume = {15}, number = {2}, }
local.export.bibtexAuthorPiepho, Hans‐Peter and Forkman, Johannes and Malik, Waqas Ahmed et al.
local.export.bibtexKeyPiepho2023
local.export.bibtexType@article

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
JRSM_JRSM1679.pdf
Size:
1.49 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
jrsm1679-sup.zip
Size:
7.41 KB
Format:
Unknown data format